- (1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter-alia prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 25.02.2009 passed by respondent no.4 pertaining to dismissal from services and for quashing the order of respondent no.3 issued vide memo dated 23.03.2010 dismissal of Appeal and also for direction to respondent no.4 to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits.
(2.) Sans details, the facts as disclosed in the writ application, in a nutshell, is that the petitioner was appointed as a Constable in Jharkhand Armed Police 6th Battalion on 12.04.2006 and was allotted Police No.121. While posted in B' company, in pursuance to an advertisement for the post of Agnik(Fireman) in Jharkhand Fire Services Ranchi, the petitioner, Sandeep Kumar and many other constables applied for the post of Agnik directly and not through proper channel. The Company Commander was upset as many Constables from his company have applied for the post of Agnik directly and not through proper channel. Due to serious ailments of pregnancy of his wife, the petitioner applied for 6 days leave which was not granted. The petitioner requested Company Commander to sanction leave in emergency. Hearing this, the Company Commander was infuriated and threatened for dire consequences. Thereupon, the Company Commander issued command certificate to the petitioner for 6th Battalion Headquarters, Jamshedpur. The petitioner and Sandeep Kumar became successful in the Agnik(Fireman) examination. A regular departmental proceeding no.58/2008 was initiated against the petitioner and in explanation the petitioner submitted in writing that he will serve in Jharkhand Armed Police only and he may be pardoned for applying directly but to the utter misfortune, the petitioner was dismissed by the Commandant(Respondent no.4) by Force order dated 25.02.2009. For the same and similar wrong/lapse, departmental proceeding was also initiated against Sandeep Kumar and he has been awarded punishment of forfeiture of increments for two years. Whereas, the petitioner has been awarded maximum punishment of dismissal from services. Being aggrieved by order of dismissal, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority i.e. Deputy Inspector General of Police. Due to non-disposal of the appeal the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(S) No.536 of 2010 and this Court vide order dated 15.02.2010 disposed of the writ application direct to respondent no. 2 to dispose of the said appeal on merits within 1 month and the DIG-Respondent no.3 rejected the appeal on the comments of Commandant-Respondent no.4 and not on merits by his order dated 23.03.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal to DG & IGP, Jharkhand, which has been rejected vide order dated 09.09.2011 which has been impugned in I.A. No.6509 of 2014. Being aggrieved by order of the disciplinary authority i.e. Commandant, Jharkhand Armed Police, 6th Battalion, Jamshedpur dated 25.02.2009 and the Appellate order dated 09.09.2011 passed by DG-IGP, Jharkhand the petitioner left with no other alternative, efficacious and speedy remedy has approached this Court invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.
(3.) Per-Contra a counter-affidavit has been filed by respondent no.1 to 4 repelling the contentions made in the writ application. It has been inter alia submitted in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner remained absent in his duty and left the Headquarters without sanction of leave and threatened the Superior Officer. He made false representation stating about the suffering of his wife and pressurized the Superior Officer for grant of leave. But on inquiry it has been come into light that the petitioner made application for appointment of State Fire Service at Ranchi and also appeared for interview before the Selection Board of the Department of State Fire Service at Ranchi as published in Hindi daily "Dainik Jagaran" news paper which goes to show that the petitioner has committed fraud and indiscipline. The petitioner made false representation with malafide intention to defraud the respondents and also he committed misconduct of Service Rules not disclosing about his application for appointment in State Fire Services. Thereafter, the matter was enquired and on the basis of enquiry report and the documentary evidence the charge levelled against the petitioner has been found correct and rightly been dismissed from services by the respondent nos. 2 and 4 being affirmed by the respondent no.3.;